List Mgmt. Priority pick

Should PP’s be given to:


  • Total voters
    147

dangerousdane

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2015
5,002
5,592
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Arsenal
too much incentive to tank......
I think the depends on the set up, i didn't mean PP at 1, 2 or 3 but maybe at end of 1st round, or in different spots for each spot or maybe some form of lottery.

Also if the AFL took tanking seriously and investigated any wrong doing, teams might be weary of doing it. Maybe not PP but something imo needs to be done.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

dangerousdane

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2015
5,002
5,592
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Arsenal
Priority round - floated the idea the last year couple of years, and I think Wily Trout and Lord Lucifer have done so in various formats as well.

Priority round: 18th -> 11th (Picks 1-8)
1st Round: 18th -> 1st (Picks 9-26)
2nd Round: 18th -> 1st (Picks 27-44)
Etc.

Finals for the top 8. Statistically, the team in 9th and 10th are usually a chance at finals coming into the last couple of rounds, so tanking shouldn't be an issue (I'm sure clubs would rather a finals spot than an extra pick ~8). Could even work in that finals wild card thing they've floated in the past and have 9th and 10th play off for a gig in September.

It's essentially giving the bottom 8 sides an extra pick each between 9 and 16 in the draft, and bumping the top 10 sides back to accommodate.

Probably makes the free agency compo easier as well. Just drop it down to three bands - before round 1 (but after priority round), before round 2, before round 3 - and do away with all the "finishing position" stuff.
There would be many ways to do it and the above is pretty good, it would also allow low clubs, like us to retain senior players, like Tuohy and still bring in young talent at the same time, speeding up the process again.
 

Foucault1989

Club Legend
Oct 16, 2016
2,218
4,431
AFL Club
Carlton
Did we?

No compensation for Waite, Robbo, Betts, etc. very little for Garlett.
We were down at the time of compromised drafts,
Free agency does not help non-finalist teams, etc.
We are competing against teams that get PP (Brisbane 2 years ago) while being denied one by the AFL for worse circumstances.

We had Collo white ant us to lose our home ground advantage (and give the AFL a massive free kick in making Docklands viable)
We accepted the loss of draft picks/trading that far exceeded anything before or since (* got less penalty for doping...)

You could say it was self inflicted, but we have been treated appallingly by the AFL.
What do you mean no compensation for Betts, Garlett and Robinson? We gave them away for nothing and with Betts we took Thomas which offset any compensation. For Waite we could have gotten a 3rd rounder at best....cool
 

gandaal

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 8, 2004
17,827
12,531
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
I've always been a big believer in the use of priority picks to bring balance to the competition. I'm even more of a fan now that it's become clear that free agency works almost exclusively to the benefit of top clubs.

Back in the day the system was abused by clubs like Collingwood and Hawthorn, but that because the system was too generous. If a club has won less than 6 games over two years then thats unacceptable, and it make the competition unbalanced. And if it goes on too long you run the risk of permanently damaging the clubs involved. Right now there's a very real risk of Gold Coast folding, and yet were still debating whether they need extra support? Crazy.

Plus I feel that back when there were priority picks the competition was more cyclical. You didn't have the same clubs playing finals every year with very little change.
 

The Blue Weirdo

Senior List
Jan 16, 2019
218
590
AFL Club
Carlton
Player selection and recruitment needs to be liberalized youngsters should be free to chose their preferred destination club, and not submitted to the AFL flawed and restrictive draft.
Think this is how Rugby League operates and only use a salary cap to equalize, and we know better than anyone how easily that is to corrupt.(well most of the others doing it never got penalised). This is like the tail wagging the dog. Any players that don't like the fairness rules, should p**s off to Woolies and stack shelves or something.
 

Loramarthalas

All Australian
Jul 11, 2008
634
584
Tasmania
AFL Club
Carlton
I forget who posted this the first time, but I kept a copy. For those of you opposed to a PP for struggling clubs -- how much more evidence do you need that the current system rewards those at the top and punishes those at the bottom? Free agency is the main engine for this. Of course, no one wants to go to a struggling club, so trading is much easier for top clubs as well. If you're at the bottom, expect to stay there for decades.

Some considerations:
- 12 of the last 14 premierships have been shared between 5 clubs
- Same 5 clubs have comprised 21 of 28 grand final appearances
- They've collectively made 56/70 finals appearances
- 3 of them are currently sitting in the top 4

Conversely bottom 5 clubs have:
- 0/14 premierships
- 0/28 grand final appearances
- 13/66 finals appearances
- 3 are currently sitting bottom 3
 

FitzroyBlueBagger

FitzroyBlueBagger
Sep 30, 2018
1,027
2,167
Fitzroy
AFL Club
Carlton
Some good discussion for and against.

I haven’t voted for any of the outcomes.

This is my two cents fwiw (sfa)

I don’t like the idea of asking for assistance but I understand the need for the AFL to dish out PP’s

It’s the AFL’s way of “helping”

One thing I didn’t mind was the mini-draft ting that they had going where GWS/GC had access to Jack Martin, Hogan, O’Meara and I can’t remember who else. They had to trade them for picks or whatever but I didn’t mind the concept.

PP’s if they don’t disturb the first round I don’t necessarily mind, provided they are traded for established talent. The mature league access was ok as well.

I mean if you’ve been s**t for ages I liked someone else’s idea of having a temporary increased cap for say 2-4 years to attract an extra free agent or two. Once the increased cap period is over though it would get interesting.

I’m sort of sitting on the fence I suppose.

And then there’s the whole tanking ting 😬
Brad Crouch was the other player...
 

FitzroyBlueBagger

FitzroyBlueBagger
Sep 30, 2018
1,027
2,167
Fitzroy
AFL Club
Carlton
Noticed Roos stating OnTheCouch that any club that gets rewarded with a priority pick should have to on trade it for an established player, can't see how that Guarantees a trade at all or Guarantees a trade without any unfair imbalances, if forced to do this it could end up with a far inferior player than what they could have gained through the draft...
 

Carltontragic

Team Captain
Sep 26, 2018
485
1,157
AFL Club
Carlton
Noticed Roos stating OnTheCouch that any club that gets rewarded with a priority pick should have to on trade it for an established player, can't see how that Guarantees a trade at all or Guarantees a trade without any unfair imbalances, if forced to do this it could end up with a far inferior player than what they could have gained through the draft...
True, but with 15/16 clubs to trade with, hopefully someone would present as a good opportunity, something is better then nothing imo
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Magruder

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 14, 2012
8,058
9,397
AFL Club
Carlton
I've always been a big believer in the use of priority picks to bring balance to the competition. I'm even more of a fan now that it's become clear that free agency works almost exclusively to the benefit of top clubs.

Back in the day the system was abused by clubs like Collingwood and Hawthorn, but that because the system was too generous. If a club has won less than 6 games over two years then thats unacceptable, and it make the competition unbalanced. And if it goes on too long you run the risk of permanently damaging the clubs involved. Right now there's a very real risk of Gold Coast folding, and yet were still debating whether they need extra support? Crazy.

Plus I feel that back when there were priority picks the competition was more cyclical. You didn't have the same clubs playing finals every year with very little change.
Would like to see something along the lines of a qualifying period of s**tness for PP.

Something like 5 years without finals makes you eligible for a PP in the first rnd - but before finals qlfying teams get their picks.

Strangely enough, assuming ladder positions stay the same, only 3 teams would qualify - Suns, Us & Saints.

PPs would be 11, 12, 13 respectively. That's very good trade capital.

Last year it would have been 4 clubs - Brisbane also would have been eligible.
 

Magruder

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 14, 2012
8,058
9,397
AFL Club
Carlton
The Gold Coast had picks 2,3,6 and 23 and 3 mature aged players and it didn't help them. I don't think a priority pick will help them improve much next year but if they get one then Carlton should get one too.
Agree but I think they have some very real competitive disadvantages

A PP may be far more useful for us
 

thylacine60

Make me an Admin!
Jun 4, 2006
86,193
132,361
Footscray
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Insert Token EPL Club
I've always been a big believer in the use of priority picks to bring balance to the competition. I'm even more of a fan now that it's become clear that free agency works almost exclusively to the benefit of top clubs.

Back in the day the system was abused by clubs like Collingwood and Hawthorn, but that because the system was too generous. If a club has won less than 6 games over two years then thats unacceptable, and it make the competition unbalanced. And if it goes on too long you run the risk of permanently damaging the clubs involved. Right now there's a very real risk of Gold Coast folding, and yet were still debating whether they need extra support? Crazy.

Plus I feel that back when there were priority picks the competition was more cyclical. You didn't have the same clubs playing finals every year with very little change.
free kick hawthorn......
 

gbatman

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 26, 2008
11,982
9,224
Behind You...
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Justice League
AFL need to do something about the rebuild time frame, as it stands it's around 7 years give or take. That's around 5-7 years down the bottom if you're a bottom side which is bad for the game and the clubs.

Things were ok when there were 16 teams meaning the draft was deeper, there was more in the rookie draft and state leagues and there were priority picks and no free agency.

Since then the two new sides have thinned out the state leagues, later picks and rookie picks. They have spread picks further apart which has devalued second round picks onwards and free agency has been something which has worked in the favor of middle to top sides.

AFL is like no other sport. One player, no matter how good is such a small percentage of the team, even two players are so a draft system that trickles players into struggling teams isn't going to have a great or quick effect.

The system is broken and we are a good example of that, even Brisbane are a good example of that. They languished down the bottom for nearly a decade and us, as good as we are doing with bringing in players, we are still down there for 6 years and counting.

I think it's acceptable that a rebuild takes that long. End of the day a rebuild is complete when a side can go from bottom to being a contender, at least to being a finals team and that doesn't happen until a club can bring in enough good and mature players.

A priority pic adds potentially one good player. You give a team two PP and maybe a 7 year rebuild is cut down to 6 or maybe even 5 if they really use those picks well so it will have an impact on time frames.

I think the AFL need to do a few things for bottom sides...

after two consecutive seasons in the bottom 4 or with less than 5 wins...

- An PP after pick 14. Gives a slight handicap to the top 4 while boosting a bottom 4 side. It's not a prime pick but there should be good players there and it's good trade value.
- Restricted free agents become un-restricted free agents to the weak sides.

I don't think too much more needs to be done to help struggling clubs but it would be nice to see teams given the opportunity to rebuild quicker.

We've been convinced that PP picks are bad, they aren't, it's the betting agents and perennial top sides who have pushed for them to go because it doesn't suit their agenda. They are the only ones it has a negative impact on. End of the day they don't have a huge impact, they just help really weak sides improve and become relevant quicker.

Yeah all sides can rebuild in the current system but the good teams are staying good for far too long and the weak teams are taking too long to bring in enough good mature players to get good again and it seems that some teams who are rebuilding aren't getting to the end in very good shape, perhaps because they have to pay mature players too heavily.

Too many changes the last 10 year going for the top sides and against the bottom and now the system is broken and needs fixing to find the balance again.
 

Macca43

Club Legend
Mar 10, 2011
2,207
5,301
AFL Club
Carlton
AFL need to do something about the rebuild time frame, as it stands it's around 7 years give or take. That's around 5-7 years down the bottom if you're a bottom side which is bad for the game and the clubs.

Things were ok when there were 16 teams meaning the draft was deeper, there was more in the rookie draft and state leagues and there were priority picks and no free agency.

Since then the two new sides have thinned out the state leagues, later picks and rookie picks. They have spread picks further apart which has devalued second round picks onwards and free agency has been something which has worked in the favor of middle to top sides.

AFL is like no other sport. One player, no matter how good is such a small percentage of the team, even two players are so a draft system that trickles players into struggling teams isn't going to have a great or quick effect.

The system is broken and we are a good example of that, even Brisbane are a good example of that. They languished down the bottom for nearly a decade and us, as good as we are doing with bringing in players, we are still down there for 6 years and counting.

I think it's acceptable that a rebuild takes that long. End of the day a rebuild is complete when a side can go from bottom to being a contender, at least to being a finals team and that doesn't happen until a club can bring in enough good and mature players.

A priority pic adds potentially one good player. You give a team two PP and maybe a 7 year rebuild is cut down to 6 or maybe even 5 if they really use those picks well so it will have an impact on time frames.

I think the AFL need to do a few things for bottom sides...

after two consecutive seasons in the bottom 4 or with less than 5 wins...

- An PP after pick 14. Gives a slight handicap to the top 4 while boosting a bottom 4 side. It's not a prime pick but there should be good players there and it's good trade value.
- Restricted free agents become un-restricted free agents to the weak sides.

I don't think too much more needs to be done to help struggling clubs but it would be nice to see teams given the opportunity to rebuild quicker.

We've been convinced that PP picks are bad, they aren't, it's the betting agents and perennial top sides who have pushed for them to go because it doesn't suit their agenda. They are the only ones it has a negative impact on. End of the day they don't have a huge impact, they just help really weak sides improve and become relevant quicker.

Yeah all sides can rebuild in the current system but the good teams are staying good for far too long and the weak teams are taking too long to bring in enough good mature players to get good again and it seems that some teams who are rebuilding aren't getting to the end in very good shape, perhaps because they have to pay mature players too heavily.

Too many changes the last 10 year going for the top sides and against the bottom and now the system is broken and needs fixing to find the balance again.
Not to mention pretty much every player is a free agent who chooses where they want to get traded to meaning bottom clubs get no benefit from having better draft picks to trade with.
 

goreds

Premiership Player
Oct 10, 2008
3,322
4,043
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Agree but I think they have some very real competitive disadvantages

A PP may be far more useful for us
GC need a bigger cap, simple really but teams like Collingwood put a stop to it with Sydney and now GC will struggle for a long time to come. Lack of finals in there earlier years have destroyed their list and it will keep happening...

No use giving anyone a PP and then forcing them to trade it as they will get rubbish in return, as players don't want to go to GC, we would be ok...

The AFL should have given out PP last season but they balked at it due to pressure from other clubs (Pies). No excuse this year!
 

Blutopia

Team Captain
Nov 8, 2018
428
862
AFL Club
Carlton
More Tom Papley
If Hawks got Mitchell for pick 14, we wouldn’t be using a priority pick for Papley.
We will likely get him but I doubt we would give up much more than pick 25 value fo
AFL need to do something about the rebuild time frame, as it stands it's around 7 years give or take. That's around 5-7 years down the bottom if you're a bottom side which is bad for the game and the clubs.

Things were ok when there were 16 teams meaning the draft was deeper, there was more in the rookie draft and state leagues and there were priority picks and no free agency.

Since then the two new sides have thinned out the state leagues, later picks and rookie picks. They have spread picks further apart which has devalued second round picks onwards and free agency has been something which has worked in the favor of middle to top sides.

AFL is like no other sport. One player, no matter how good is such a small percentage of the team, even two players are so a draft system that trickles players into struggling teams isn't going to have a great or quick effect.

The system is broken and we are a good example of that, even Brisbane are a good example of that. They languished down the bottom for nearly a decade and us, as good as we are doing with bringing in players, we are still down there for 6 years and counting.

I think it's acceptable that a rebuild takes that long. End of the day a rebuild is complete when a side can go from bottom to being a contender, at least to being a finals team and that doesn't happen until a club can bring in enough good and mature players.

A priority pic adds potentially one good player. You give a team two PP and maybe a 7 year rebuild is cut down to 6 or maybe even 5 if they really use those picks well so it will have an impact on time frames.

I think the AFL need to do a few things for bottom sides...

after two consecutive seasons in the bottom 4 or with less than 5 wins...

- An PP after pick 14. Gives a slight handicap to the top 4 while boosting a bottom 4 side. It's not a prime pick but there should be good players there and it's good trade value.
- Restricted free agents become un-restricted free agents to the weak sides.

I don't think too much more needs to be done to help struggling clubs but it would be nice to see teams given the opportunity to rebuild quicker.

We've been convinced that PP picks are bad, they aren't, it's the betting agents and perennial top sides who have pushed for them to go because it doesn't suit their agenda. They are the only ones it has a negative impact on. End of the day they don't have a huge impact, they just help really weak sides improve and become relevant quicker.

Yeah all sides can rebuild in the current system but the good teams are staying good for far too long and the weak teams are taking too long to bring in enough good mature players to get good again and it seems that some teams who are rebuilding aren't getting to the end in very good shape, perhaps because they have to pay mature players too heavily.

Too many changes the last 10 year going for the top sides and against the bottom and now the system is broken and needs fixing to find the balance again.
Great post this and I couldn’t agree more.
What we have to look at is that in basketball they have a draft and to get a high pick, the value of picking a star - with only 5 players on the court at any time - can be massive.
In afl, picking a star being 1 of 18 has much less benefit.

Just look at the impact PP’s had on Saints and Hawks in early 2000’s and how it built their lists.

The competitions current state is a result of a league that’s had to go through a cycle of two new clubs coming in and taking all of the young talent. At the same time as free agency introduced.

The draft system came in to virtually stop CFC, Essendon, Hawthorn dominating all the time. We didn’t like it at the time but it has served its purpose.

Now we are on the other side of the fence due to our own mismanagement - I agree, but the reason other clubs were unsuccessful pre-draft introduction was also largely due to mismanagement and the afl still brought in the draft to equalise.

Now that some of those teams are up the top now, they want the afl to be stricter and they oppose PP’s. The afl needs to tell them to get stuffed like it told us when we opposed the draft system to come in back in the 80’s.

If the afl wants the league to have cycles and give all clubs a shot at spending the time in the top half, then it just has to give out priority picks every year and let the cycle happen. Some clubs will stuff up at times and stay in the bottom rungs for longer but they will get it right eventually and have their time.

AFL needs to give out 2-4 priority picks every year. They need to come up with a formula taking into account ladder position/wins/years out of finals over a period of last 5 years to determine who gets them.

This would eliminate tanking unless your club was dumb enough to tank over multiple seasons but the afl should now have the resources to see this happening and then punish a club severely for it.

This would allow clubs who have been at the bottom multiple years to build a good talent pool to rise up the ladder faster than they currently have. This would make the mechanism of the draft serve its purpose better - which is equalisation. They either need to get the system right or just abolish it altogether and let the well managed clubs push up the top and the clubs that are managed poorly will stay down the bottom. Either way it needs to be more clear cut, more defined and precalculated system rather than the current discretionary system we have where the afl makes it up as they go. The current system is corrupt because of this and it creates punter frustration which leads to disinterest, which then restricts the growth of the game.
 

Blue__Balls

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 22, 2014
6,727
18,285
AFL Club
Carlton
Priority picks for teams that sit bottom three for multiple consecutive years is a nice thought, but it doesn't do a heap to help. By that stage they're likely bleeding members, money, and possibly players. The solution is to rework the draft so that teams outside the 8 are getting access to more talented players on a regular basis, so that "bottoming out" isn't required.

Compare it to the list management theory that your top 6 players in your starting 22 don't determine success anywhere near as much as your bottom 6. Is the AFL in a better place if the bottom 6 sides aren't as s**t, but the top 6 sides spend a bit less time at the top? I'd say yes. Bridge the gap between the top and the bottom sides, and the competition as a whole improves. Imagine how much more engaging the season would be if the top sides were getting 14-16 wins and the bottom sides were getting 6-8 - one or two wins could end up the difference between a top four berth and missing finals completely (2017 was actually a decent year on that front - 3 games between missing the 8 and finishing top of the ladder, and only 10 games between 1st and 18th - compared to 6 games and 16 games respectively in 2018).

Give the bottom 8 sides an extra pick before all other clubs. Those draftees aren't required for the top sides to perform in the following year or two, and they only have to slip outside the 8 before they start to benefit themselves. Speed up the cycle.
 
Last edited:

Arr0w

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 13, 2015
15,436
35,090
In Transit
AFL Club
Carlton
Priority picks for teams that sit bottom three for multiple consecutive years is a nice thought, but it doesn't do a heap to help. By that stage they're likely bleeding members, money, and possibly players. The solution is to rework the draft so that teams outside the 8 are getting access to more talented players on a regular basis, so that "bottoming out" isn't required.

Compare it to the list management theory that your top 6 players in your starting 22 don't determine success anywhere near as much as your bottom 6. Is the AFL in a better place if the bottom 6 sides aren't as s**t, but the top 6 sides spend a bit less time at the top? I'd say yes. Bridge the gap between the top and the bottom sides, and the competition as a whole improves. Imagine how much more engaging the season would be if the top sides were getting 14-16 wins and the bottom sides were getting 6-8 - one or two wins could end up the difference between a top four berth and missing finals completely (2017 was actually a decent year on that front - 3 games between missing the 8 and finishing top of the ladder, and only 10 games between 1st and 18th - compared to 6 games and 16 games respectively in 2018).

Give the bottom 8 sides an extra pick before all other clubs. Those draftees aren't required for the top sides to perform in the following year or two, and they only have to slip outside the 8 before they start to benefit themselves. Speed up the cycle.
Well thought out post.

I would vary the approach, as what you have mentioned above would still take a bottom club 3-5 years to climb the ladder, if they have drafted well, unless they use the extra pick for established players.

One alteration I would like to see introduced that doesn't further alter the draft

FA will predominantly select sides in and around the 8. The side gaining that FA, cough up only money, the the AFL hand over the compensation.

Take the Lynch to Tiger scenario. I believe the Tigers should be force to pay the compensation in the way of picks and or players, perhaps with a 20% discount, which the AFL , could then make up the difference with later picks.

Lynch still gets to the Tigers, while GC, still gets the value in picks and or players

Long term this creates a better equalization structure(top sides not getting a free hit) so effectively bottom sides get a chance to close the gap, player quality wise
 

Blutopia

Team Captain
Nov 8, 2018
428
862
AFL Club
Carlton
Priority picks for teams that sit bottom three for multiple consecutive years is a nice thought, but it doesn't do a heap to help. By that stage they're likely bleeding members, money, and possibly players. The solution is to rework the draft so that teams outside the 8 are getting access to more talented players on a regular basis, so that "bottoming out" isn't required.

Compare it to the list management theory that your top 6 players in your starting 22 don't determine success anywhere near as much as your bottom 6. Is the AFL in a better place if the bottom 6 sides aren't as s**t, but the top 6 sides spend a bit less time at the top? I'd say yes. Bridge the gap between the top and the bottom sides, and the competition as a whole improves. Imagine how much more engaging the season would be if the top sides were getting 14-16 wins and the bottom sides were getting 6-8 - one or two wins could end up the difference between a top four berth and missing finals completely (2017 was actually a decent year on that front - 3 games between missing the 8 and finishing top of the ladder, and only 10 games between 1st and 18th - compared to 6 games and 16 games respectively in 2018).

Give the bottom 8 sides an extra pick before all other clubs. Those draftees aren't required for the top sides to perform in the following year or two, and they only have to slip outside the 8 before they start to benefit themselves. Speed up the cycle.
I definitely see merit in this and I think also using a formula for teams stuck in bottom 4 for 2-3 plus years consecutively then a priority pick is a good answer.

Most years now the top 3 or 4 picks turn out the best players and there is so much coverage on draft prospects that everyone knows who those players are.

For a club to get the best two players in a draft and potentially two years running, is a massive boost for future expectations plus the off field benefits of getting top picks.

But either way - the afl needs a clear formula that has no interference by them using their discretion.

If I had it my way, I would just rather we have salary cap and club soft cap spend of football departments as the only equalisation method and go back to the old way of recruiting talent - but that won’t be happening so we need to find a model that works and can’t be tinkered with to suit afl power brokers and who they want to be successful.
 
Top Bottom